Gift Exchanges During Marriage Rituals Among the Italian Jews in the Early Modern Period: a Historic-Anthropological Reading

GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 485

Roni WEINSTEIN Pisa University, Dept. of Modern and Contemporary History Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Storia, Sezione Moderna e Contemporanea

GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS AMONG THE ITALIAN JEWS IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD: A HISTORIC-ANTHROPOLOGICAL READING

RÉSUMÉ

De la fin du XVe siècle au milieu du XVIIe, les communautés juives d’Italie furent le lieu d’un débat halakhique sur les présents du fiancé à sa promise. À l’arrière-plan de ce débat figurait la règle talmudique selon laquelle le fondement du mariage ré- side dans le don que fait le fiancé d’un bien à sa future épouse. Les aspects légaux de cette question n’expliquent toutefois qu’en partie la durée et l’âpreté de ce débat. La pérennité de cette coutume, parmi les juifs italiens, en dépit des résistances non moins durables des juifs venus d’ailleurs, est liée à la fonction des présents dans les rituels locaux du mariage. L’étude des écrits consacrés à cette question — ouvrages classiques ou actuels d’inspiration anthropologique — confirment le lien étroit de cette pratique avec les divers aspects de la culture locale: conceptions relatives à la richesse et à la propriété, à l’honneur et à l’identité; contrôle communautaire sur les rituels du mariage et sur l’ensemble de la vie familiale.

SUMMARY

From late 15th century to mid 17th century an Halakhic debate — about gifts conferred from the groom to the bride — was conducted in Jewish-Italian communities. The background for this debate was the Talmudic ruling that marriage was ba- sically created by conferring some property from a man to a woman, his intended wife. The legal aspect explains only partially the longevity of this debate and its acrimonious style. The persistence of Italian Jews to confer gifts, in spite of no less durable objection by non-Italian immigrants to Italy, relates to the function that gifts held in local marriage rituals. In recurring to classical as well as contemporary anthropological works on gifts, it is claimed that gifts connected major issues in local culture, such as property and wealth, juvenile sub-culture, honor, local identity, and community control of marriage rituals and family life.

From late fifteenth to mid seventeenth century an intense polemics evolved in Italy, around the issue of gifts exchange from the groom to the

Revue des Études juives, 165 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2006, pp. 485-521 doi: 10.2143/REJ.165.3.2018361

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein485 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 486 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

bride and, vice versa, before the betrothal act. The halakhic debate involved the most prominent rabbis in Italy, who reiterated time and again that according to local customs it is permitted to bestow gifts even prior to betrothal. Yet doubts and resistance to this custom continued, as firmly as ever, until the debate subsided in mid seventeenth century. I would claim that the rise and longevity of this discussion should not be clarified only in halakhic terms, but mostly as derived from the function that gifts exchange between brides, grooms and their families fulfilled during marriage rituals. The modern anthropological and sociological findings about gifts and donations elucidate the meaning of this long controversy.

The Legal-Halakhic Status of Gifts Giving during Marriage

Biblical stories (Genesis chapters 24 and 34) mention the gifts that the groom's family gives the bride's family, as was customary in the ancient Middle East. This practice is also known at the time of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and was later discussed in rabbinic literature. Discussion focused on the legal definition of the gifts given by the groom to his future bride. It became a delicate issue once the kiddushin [betrothal] were described in analogy to an acquisition act, as described in M. Kiddushin 1:1 “the woman is acquired … by money, by writ, and by intercourse”. The “writ” is the kiddushin writ, namely a valuable material object (due to the parch- ment's cost and the scribe's wages). This writ might explicitly hint at the next writ — the ketubbah — stating the man's financial commitment to his wife. The “money” given to the woman could be coins, bills, or minimal property worth. “Intercourse” is also a way of transferring assets in a society that attaches financial value to virginity, forcing the man who takes it to pay the woman's father a set sum1. Thus giving some property to the intended bride raises doubts in regard to their legal implications. In halakhic terminology, the question is whether we “fear sivlonot” [that is, fear the legal implications of wedding gifts], namely whether gift giving leads to a situation resembling kiddushin. The similarity between the kiddushin ritual and an act of acquisition raises a basic legal query: how to distinguish one from the other? In other 1. See, for instance, Tosefot on Kiddushin 3b, s.v. ‘ha-av zakai be-vito’: “The Palestinian Talmud implies that he [the girl's father] has a legal claim on betrothal through intercourse, since he is paid for it”. On the importance of virginity in Jewish marriage law, see Encyclo- pedia Talmudica, t. 20, Jerusalem, 1947-2005, s.v. ‘ta‘anat betulim’ [virginity claim], 617- 656. See also M. GRUZMAN, “On the Halakhic Development that led the Blood of Defloration to be treated as Ritually Unclean” (in Hebrew), Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature 5, 1990, p. 47-62.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein486 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 487

words, how to differentiate a transfer of assets between unmarried men and women as a commercial or economic transaction, from a transfer of assets with an entirely different legal meaning, namely, a change in personal status? Moreover, how can a woman be protected from men seeking to impose kiddushin arrangement on her, claiming they had given her money for kiddushin purpose and she had accepted it?2 The Talmud drew an obvious distinction between two categories of property transfer from a man to a woman, based on the parties' intentions. When the behavior of the two parties attests to their wish to marry, the transfer of property or the act of intercourse have a different meaning than that applying in ordinary circumstances. The issue of “sivlonot” [the gifts the groom confers upon the bride before the wedding], was discussed in detail in TB Kiddushin 50b. R. Pappa sums up the debate: “Wherever the kiddushin precedes the sivlonot, we fear” [if the local custom is to hold the kiddushin and only then give sivlonot we fear, since the gifts could be viewed as evidence of a kiddushin agreement, creating at least a suspicion or a “doubtful kiddushin”]. In other words, local custom determines the gifts' legal status. If all parties understand that the custom calls for an exchange of gifts even before the kiddushin, we need not feat that the gift will arouse a suspicion if kiddushin. The dictum is simple and unequivocal, and concludes the Talmudic discussion. Although this principle appeared to provide halakhists ruling on “sivlonot fears” with a sufficiently clear criterion, controversy persisted throughout the Middle Ages. Two contrary trends are prominent in the ju- ridical literature, the stringent Ashkenazi and the more lenient Sephardic. Halakha persons of the second tradition engaged in a concrete, factual ex- amination of each case, being aware of the local perception of sivlonot, and particularly of the overt ritual dimensions of gift exchange. By contrast, more stringent halakhists of the first tradition feared that the variety of local customs does not allow a sure determination of the conditions under which gifts exchange is permitted. Given the fear of unwanted consequences, they felt that issuing a far-reaching prohibition was best. Toward the end of the Middle Ages, the lenient trend became dominant. The most prominent halakhists in Ashkenaz stated that contemporary local custom was stable and well known, leaving no room for doubt or fear concerning the implications of sivlonot. Ashkenazi authorities, such as R.

2. A derived question (see TB Kiddushin 6a) is whether intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman (“forbidden intercourse”) is legally binding on the man, as a case of betrothal by intercourse.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein487 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 488 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

Salomon Luria (known as Maharshal)3, were joined by others such as Elijah Mizrahi, Moses Alashkar, Benjamin b. Mattitya, David b. Zimra, Joseph Caro, Samuel Medina, Moses Isserles, Elijah n. Hayyim, and Joseph Trani4. Some of them even stated, in principle, rulings should be lenient, contrary to the early Middle Ages overall ruling in favor of stringency. Even those, who occasionally issued stringent rulings, refrained from formulating a general, overall prohibition.

The Halakhic Controversy in Italy Concerning Sivlonot

The discussion about sivlonot began in Italy toward the end of the fifteenth century, and evoked a halakhic controversy that faded only gradually during the seventeenth century. Prominent Italian rabbis and halakhists were repeatedly asked about the “fear” of creating a kiddushin situation by giving gifts. In response, they wrote long treatises and exchanged letters and opinions on the subject. Tones were often harsh and vindictive, attesting to the controversy's bitterness5.

3. R. Salomon b. Jehiel Luria, Responsa, Jerusalem, 1993, #21, p. 70-75: “The claim to be that sivlonot were given for kiddushin purposes. Unlike the practice stating that sivlonot are only personal gifts and tokens of affection … But in our times [contrary to early Ashkenazic practice], when the custom is to give many sivlonot, and most [grooms] send a ring, golden coins, rubies, and other finery two or three times, this is obviously immaterial”. On the shift of Ashkenazi rulings from their early medieval stringency to the greater leniency of early modern times, see Y.A. DINARI, The Rabbis of Germany and Austria at the Close of the Middle Ages. Their Conceptions and Halacha-Writings (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1984, p. 111-112. This shift also affected patterns in Eastern Europe, where the couple used to exchange gifts during the tenaim ceremony. See J. BAUMGARTEN, “Amour et famille en Europe centrale”, in Sh. TRIGANO (éd.), La société juive à travers l'histoire, t.2, Paris, 1992, p. 422. 4. Elijah Mizrahi, Responsa, Jerusalem, 1938, #17; op.cit., #18, the respondent is Abraham b. Ya'ish; Moses Alashkar, Responsa, Jerusalem, 1959, #52, Benjamin b. Mattitya of Arta, Responsa Binyamin Ze'ev, Jerusalem, 1989, #48, p. 101a- 104a; R. David b. Zimra [Radbaz], Responsa, Warsaw, 1882, part A, #382, part 7, #55-56; Joseph Karo, Responsa Beit Yosef, Dinei Kiddushin, Jerusalem, 1960, #1; R. Samuel Medina [Maharashdam], Responsa, Lemberg, 1862, #14, p. 16; R. Joseph b. Moses di Trani [Maharit], Responsa, Tel- Aviv, 1959, #28; Moses Isserless [Rema], Responsa, Jerusalem, 1971, #30; Israel Isserlein, Trumat ha-Deshen, Jerusalem 1992, #207, allows a woman who has received gifts from a man to marry another man without obtaining a divorce from the first one, although “this lenient ruling does not come to me easily”. 5. Following is a list of authorities and tracts on the subject: 1. Rulings mentioned in R. Joseph Colon's various response collections: Comprehensive Responsa, Jerusalem, 1984, # 28-29, 101, 170, 171; New Responsa and Rulings, t. 1, E.D. PINES (ed.), Jerusalem, 1984, #46, p. 204-217; Responsa, Jerusalem, 1973, #101, 114- 115. 2. New York Ms., Columbia University X893T67 (Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manu- script, National Library in Jerusalem #20659 [henceforward IMHM]), #74, p. 55a-56b, Responsa of Jehiel Trabot, a case from Pesaro 1511. 3. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 150 (IMHM #32246), #17, p. 441-443. The manuscript contains a collection of response on “sivlonot fears” (op. cit., p. 41-76).

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein488 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 489

The dispute began, as noted, toward the end of the fifteenth century in an anonymous community in Northern Italy. It transcended the local arena and became a topic in the Italian agenda when the question was addressed to a rabbi outside this community, R. Joseph Colon b. Salomon Trabotto (Maharik), an eminent halakhic authority in Italy at the beginning of the sixteenth century and a foremost representative of Ashkenzi halakhic tradi- tion6. Despite his Ashkenazi origin, Colon is a most important documenter of the traditions of Italian Jews. Clearly, his motivations for this documen-

4. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 134 (IMHM #5606), #5, p. 93-95, a case of doubtful betrothal due to the bestowal of gifts, Rome the month of Iyar 1518. A court ruling on the same case, Rome the month of Shevat, see op. cit., #102, p. 272-281. 5. In the last responsum, the halakhist mentions a responsum by R. David Pizzighittone (op. cit., p. 94), a Paduan rabbi from the first half of the sixteenth century. 6. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 150, #15, p. 57-60, a ruling by R. Judah Mintz adopted by a court of three judges, another case from Rome the month of Adar. 7. Op. cit., #16, p. 63, anonymous responsum, probably from the same period. 8. “Quarrels at the Gates”, in Y. BOKSENBOIM (ed.), “Parshiot: Some Controversial Affairs of Renaissance Italian Jews, Tel-Aviv, 1983, p. 234-345. For a summary of the affair, see op. cit., p. 32-41. For further sources, see Y. BOKSENBOIM (ed.), Responsa Matanot ba-Adam, Tel-Aviv, 1983, #115, p. 196-201; R. Meir [Maharam] of Padua, Responsa, Cracaw, 1882, #28, p. 61a-63a. “Quarrels at the Gates” contains three responsa by local rabbis, claiming that “sivlonot fears” are justified even according to local tradition: (1) R. Jacob of Corinaldo (op. cit., #22, p. 275-284. (2) R. Obadiah of Sforno (op. cit., #24, p. 286). (3) R. Kalonimos b. Elazar of Montagna (op. cit., #25, p. 287-289). 9. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 150, two response by R. Jacob b. Emmanuel [Bonet de Lattes] Provinzallo, #13-14, p. 45-46. The responsa refer to another case from Rome. 10. R. Moses Provinzallo, Responsa, A. Yani (ed.), Jerusalem, 1989, #78, p. 124-133, a case from 1561. 11. Wien Ms., National Library 24 (IMHM #1303), p. 48a-49a, a responsum by Isaac b. Emmanuel de Lattes from 1561. 12. London Ms., British Museum 9152 (IMHM #6590), #140, p. 244a-245b, responsum by R. Jacob Israel b. Raphael Finzi. 13. R. Menahem Azaria of Fano, Responsa, Jerusalem, 1963, # 81, p. 143-144, a case from Ferrara. 14. New York Ms., JTS 7085, Rabbinica 1356 (IMHM #43360), #122, p. 187b-193b, responsa of Jehiel Trabot, a case from Ascoli 1583. 15. Strasburg Ms., National and University Library 4088 (IMHM #3963), p. 141-162, a responsum by Doctor David Salomon, alias Vital Meidal de-Yatmei [protector of orphans]. 16. Strasburg Ms., National and University Library 4089 (IMHM #3964), p. 61-68, responsum of Salomon Hayyim b. Raphael Jehiel Cohen. 17. Strasburg Ms., National and University Library 4086 (IMHM #3961), p. 273-274, an anonymous halakhist in a late seventeenth century responsa miscellanea. 18. Moscow Ms., Ginzburg Collection 286 (IMHM #47605), p. 29a-73a, records of legal proceedings discussing a doubtful betrothal, Fossano 1682. 19. Moscow Ms., Ginzburg Collection 251/11 (IMHM #27955), p. 173a, a responsum by R. Samson b. Joshua Morpurgo. For copious documentation on this affair, see LAMPRONTI, Pahad Yitzhak, Warsaw, 1885, s.v. “safek kiddushin” [doubtful betrothal], p. 76a-123b. 6. For biographical detail on Colon, his ancestry and his halakhic traditions, see J.R. WOOLF, The Life and Responsa of Rabbi Joseph of Rabbi Colon b. Salomon Trabotto (Maharik), Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein489 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 490 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

tation were not ethnographic, but meant to defend local custom against those questioning its halakhic legitimacy and validity. Three long responses he wrote on this issue combine into the hitherto most comprehensive halakhic monograph on the subject7, which was widely quoted by halakhists in Italy and served as a basis for future discussions following its inclusion by Joseph Caro in his summa Beit Yosef. Colon combined a halakhic discussion that had preceded him. The long- est of Colon's response was written in reaction to a work by an anonymous sage. In this work, which Colon quotes extensively, the anonymous write tried to show that there are many and varied causes for “sivlonot fears”. Colon wrote his reaction at the request of “our brethren, the holy community of Florence”8, emphasizing he had confined his discussion to a specific ritual situation, namely, giving sivlonot in the course of the Tenaim ritual [celebrating the termination of Matchmaking phase by signing a legal writ] or closely after it9. In this context, and only in this context, Colon claims that no reason can be adduced for fearing that the sivlonot were given for kiddushin purpose. In his long response, Colon notes the arguments adduced by the stringent halakhists, considers them, and rejects them one by one: evidence of the act of giving, elders' testimony about local custom, loosing sivlonot, determin- ing local custom, sivlonot as love tokens, precautions when giving sivlonot, the communities' agreement, the injunction against allowing what earlier authorities had forbidden, actual judicial precedents, rejecting a woman's presumptions, the link between the gift and assets leading to kiddushin, the verbal formula used in the giving, the comparison between sivlonot fears and the ketubbah laws, apprehensions about contradicting stringent halakhists, the issue called in Halakha “endless water”, the need for stringency concerning laws of doubtful kiddushin10. Every claim for stringency

7. Colon, Responsa, #101, p. 114-115. For earlier response, see Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #28-29, p. 60-62, and also idem., New Responsa and Rulings, #46, p. 204-217. Colon’s doctrinal rulings are mentioned in Beit Yosef and Shulhan Aruch, Even ha-Ezer, #45, through which they gained circulation beyond the Italian communities for which they had been originally intended. As doctrinal and legal discussions they are even longer and more comprehensive than the long debate in Beit Yosef. 8. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #170, p. 357. The printed version is incorrect, and should be amended according to Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection (IMHM #4507), p. 561, where the community name is explicitly mentioned as ‘Firenze’. At the beginning of the question, the name of the community appears as ‘Florenz’, according to the German spelling. 9. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 370: “I stated precisely in my first/previous responsum that sivlonot are given on the day of the kinyan or on the following day, so as to preclude notion that I have given license to other types of donations, and this issue is explained at length in my first responsum”. 10. Op. cit., #171.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein490 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 491

is ultimately rejected on similar grounds: the clear, open, and uniformly accepted practice in Italy is to give sivlonot before the kiddushin: “According to the contemporary custom in the whole of Italy, as I am told, all are used to giving these sivlonot after the kinyan [another term for the Tenaim ritual], on the same of the following day, and this is a fixed and inalienable law … We all know that Italians have never resorted to divorce or Halitsah [levirate marriage] because of these sivlonot, as elders and honored members of the community have attested and written”11. Colon's broad generalization is confirmed by evidence from many Italian regions or individual communities: Lombardy12, Lamarca13, communities around Ancona14, Bologna15, Florence16, and the main community of Rome17. He was certainly one of the foremost, if not the most prominent, 11. Op. cit., p. 369, 383. Colon’s response on gifts persistently repeat this claim. 12. Op. cit., #101, p. 206: “You may clearly see that the halakhist [R. Salomon b. Adret or Rashba] ruled that local custom should be relied upon, even when a minority follows the custom of betrothal first and then sivlonot, and even more so when the custom is for everyone to give sivlonot first and then betroth, as I am told is the case in Lombardy”. 13. Copenhagen Ms., Royal Library 115/4 (IMHM #6928), #17, p. 65-76, a responsum of Abraham b. Moses Ha-Cohen from 1511: “A case from the Lamarca region, dealing with a woman called Dolce Pirna, who arranged a match for her daughter and vowed to bring her to the canopy … Obadiah [the intended groom] sent sivlonot, and once even sent a ducato through another man … when the said Obadiah from Cesena was passing through there”. The halakhist rules that no sivlonot fears apply in this case since “in this region, we do not even have a minority that customarily holds the betrothal first and then gives sivlonot”. 14. R. Moses Provinzallo, Responsa, #78, p. 124a-b, refers to “Ancona and elsewhere”. 15. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 370-371: “Many great and distinguished rabbis have allowed this, as I did five years ago, relying on what my erudite and trustworthy soul-mate, Joseph Trabot from Bologna, wrote to me about his daughter … as well as on other eminent figures from our area such as the leaders of the holy community of Bologna and others, whom you asked … Joseph, may God keep him and watch over him, wrote to me in his own and that, about five years ago, six rabbis had already licensed the giving of sivlonot, and his formulation are copied in the margins of this script, to the letter. So why did you [the person addressing Colon] write that I licensed what my colleagues prohibited?”. See also Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 134 (IMHM #4506), #102, p. 277-278, a decision by Israel b. Jehiel Ashkenazi, together with a Roman court, ruled in 1519: “As instructions was issued in Bologna, according to the late R. Samuel and other rabbis who are still alive … stating that it is even more so in this case, since it is known that the custom in his city of origin, namely Bologna, is to give sivlonot first and then betroth, and an order had already been issued that we do not fear sivlonot, neither there nor in the whole of Italy”. 16. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 370-371: “Perhaps he meant the case of Zacharia Delamir’s daughter, for whom a match was arranged with Matzliah, may God keep him and watch over him. An issue arose then between them concerning sivlonot, and rabbis from Florence approached me about this matter, and she obtained a divorce. Yet, as is well known, this was not by virtue of a court ruling but by virtue of a compromise between the parties”. 17. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 134, #102, pp. 277-278: “Certainly so here, in the main city of Rome’ where the rabbi is strict with one who wishes to have the kiddushin first, even unintentionally, and repeatedly asks whether sivlonot have already been given. For over fifteen years, the ordinance in force in all communities had been that sivlonot must be

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein491 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 492 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

halakhic authority in Italy at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries. His ruling relies on the Talmudic injunctions and on crucial halakhic precedents stating that, if giving sivlonot before the kiddushin is the prevalent in local custom, all “sivlonot fear” is obviously unwarranted. Colon also relied on trustworthy witnesses and ‘informants’. After the publication of such an unequivocal ruling, one might expect the sivlonot issue to be relegated to the margins of halakhic discussion in Italy, but this was not the case. The matter continued to occupy Italian sages through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Italian and Ashkenazi rabbis, including prominent and less important contemporary figures as well as some anonymous ones, wrote dozens of responses on the subject. Several comprehensive treatises were written in reaction to contrary positions and evoked string controversy. Colon's responses were used by all participants in the discussion, including his opponents. A clear majority of local halakhists, following Colon, ruled that the local sivlonot practice entailed no fear of kiddushin. They repeated the same halakhic arguments that, as expected, led to identical conclusions. Italian communities continued the practice of giving sivlonot before the kiddushin during sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and local rabbis allowed this practice. Only in the seventeenth century does the concern with his question in halakhic and response literature diminish. It seems inevitable to ask why did the objection to local practice persist? Alternatively, if objection to local practice persisted, what explains the stubborn adherence to it? The style of halakhic discourse is also puzzling. The discussion of the sivlonot issue could be harsh and acrimonious, and often slid into vicious slander. Even Colon, who inclines to understatements, adopted this time a sharp and offensive style in his rhetoric against an anonymous objector: “God forbid you should be one of those legislating sinful laws and writing evil, like this writer, who engendered iniquity and delivered sin, intending dis- tortion with his wicked tongue. He wrote in your name and opened up [his mouth] without savor or flavor, as aimlessly flowing water, only in darkness, and deceit, and provocation … thereby revealing his shame to all and showing he had never understood anything I said … Furthermore, how can any mad- man or food reading the words of a rabbi be so mistaken … and I say that what

give before the kiddushin. Due to claims about sivlonot, they sent a question to the Yeshivah of R. Judah Mintz and the issued an ordinance to give sivlonot first, binding all circles in the Roman community. Many have confirmed this, and I have heard that the ordinance was recorded in the community book. The rabbi asks every time whether sivlonot were give first, and will not consent to perform the kiddushin unless it is so, and his custom had already spread”. See also op. cit., p. 280: “Even more so in the city of Rome, where a general ordinance was issued in all congregations of this city, stating that sivlonot come first. Whenever a betrothal is arranged, the rabbi requires it should be preceded by sivlonot”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein492 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 493

he wrote in my name is a barefaced lie … He is so wild and senseless that he does not even understand what he writes, as the following will attest when beside all the other mistakes filling his writing, he adopted the craft of snake18, adding to my own words to belittle them”19.

Colon suggests concluding the sivlonot controversy with his anonymous opponent through an excommunication: “It is famous in places far and near so that, with God's help, I can reciprocate and proclaim a ban20 on him, endorsed by rabbis in Ashkenaz and France who care for my honor”21. Not only was his honor as a scholar challenged, but the honor of the entire community as well22. Why do sivlonot evoke such antagonistic responses in Colon and others, and what is the source of this affront to the personal and collective “honor”? It is the role of gifts in conveying messages between groups and individuals along marriage rituals that provides the background for the long controversy. The assessment of this phenomenon will follow the anthropological and sociological literature dealing with patterns of giving, generosity, and gift exchange.

Gift Exchanges in Anthropological and Sociological Research

Modern Western societies tend to obscure the fact that gift giving is one of the most significant and widespread means of transferring assets between groups and individuals. Instead, gift-giving is presented mostly as a free and personalized act, expressing the connection between giver and recipient. The gift differs form other objects or commodities, and in this lies its supposed power. Commodities carry a price tag; they can be replaced by other commodities, and do not bear their owner's personal stamp23. This

18. See Rashi on Exodus 4:3, s.v. “va-yehi”: “hinting that he had slandered the people of Israel”. 19. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171. Thee phrases appear throughout. 20. Colon resorts to the expression silu de-lo mab’a dama. See Rashi TB Ketubbot 91a, s.v. silu de-lo mab’a dama: “a thorn that does not draw blood when it pricks the flesh, namely, ban and excommunication”. 21. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 379. 22. Op. cit., #170, p. 364: “And you, eminent heads of the holy community of Florence, I have clarified what I think is proper here, in my humble opinion, since I saw that your souls thirst for Torah … As for the evil some people have spoken of you, calling you an impertinent court, I wondered about their words, and have pondered why do they defile your honor, since you acted for the sake of heaven … and you shall not be put to shame but shall speak with enemies in the gates [Psalms 127:5]” (my emphasis). 23. R.W. EMERSON, “Gift”, in A.D. Schrift (ed.), The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity, New York, 1997, p. 25-27, esp. p. 26: “The only gift is a portion of thyself … This is right and pleasing, for it restores society in so far to its primary basis, when a man’s biography is conveyed in his gift, and every man’s wealth is an index of his merit”. This is

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein493 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 494 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

division is based on the assumption that the assets a person accumulates originate in two separate circles of activity: an anonymous market in contrast to personal-family-community circle. As a derivative from this di- chotomy between economic and personal circles it is assumed that giving a gift is mainly an arbitrary act of will and expressing personal feeling, lacking broader social or cultural dimension. This distinction, however, seems questionable concerning industrialized societies24, and is certainly invalid concerning non-industrialized, pre-capitalist societies. What then, distin- guishes a gift from a transfer of assets through sale, borrowing, bribery, or inheritance? Modern discussion on gifts turns recurrently to the pioneering research of Marcel Mauss25. Mauss argues that the main motivation of gift giving is neither a personal decision nor an emotional expression. It is subject to a system of rules and social expectations. Rather than a one-time event, gift giving is an act leaving a trail of expectations, particularly of reciprocity. The construct involves three stages: giving, reciprocating, recurring giving. The recipient is in an inferior situation vis-à-vis the giver as long as s/he has failed to reciprocate. Describing the exchange of gifts as a three-staged structure was meant to point to a wide-ranging process of exchange in archaic societies. In a later work, Mauss argued that gift exchanges were not exclusive to archaic societies but features also among European societies at the dawn of the Middle Ages. The reciprocity of gifts exchange was added to other forms of social exchange, such as mutual services and help, the exchange of women, children growing up in other families, military service, and joint celebrations where the parties give each other gifts and assets or exchange mutual ritual gestures26. In a society lacking a continuous or uniform political framework and failing to provide services on an egalitar- ian-civic basis, establishing long-term relationships between various groups in the social hierarchy by giving and receiving services was important. Ex-

also the stance in J.G. CARRIER, Gifts and Commodities, London, 1995. The distinction between a “world of commodities” versus gift giving recurs in many modern works. See also D.J. CHEAL, The Gift Economy, London, 1988; L. HYDE, The Gift, Imagination, and the Erotic Life of Property, New York 1983. 24. M. BLOCH and J. PARRY, “Introduction”, in M. BLOCH and J. PARRY (ed.), Money and the Morality of Exchange, p. 1-32, esp. p. 23: “What money means is not only situationally defined but also constantly re-negotiated”. 25. See M. MAUSS, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, London, 1954. For a lucid presentation of Mauss’ view see J.G. CARRIER, “Gifts, Commodi- ties, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange”, Sociological Forum 6, 1991, p. 119-136. 26. M. MAUSS, “Gift, Gift”, in SCHRIFT (ed.), The Logic of the Gift, p. 28-32.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein494 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 495

changing gifts enhanced the service ethos and reciprocity27, as in Ancien Régime society in Europe. The weakening of older structures of government in Europe during the early modern period raised the issue of gifts and their place in the political tradition of the Ancien Régime28. Gifts were given in order to “honor” or “gain the friendship” of patrons. Without them, playing a role in royal courts or enlisting the support of powerful figures was simply impossible. Due to the blurring borders between gift giving and open bribery, gifts could acquire multi-faced meanings. The act of gift-giving was accompanied by a rich body language, by familiar gestures, as well as bywords or forms of courtesy that gave gifts added grace and social flair, beside serving to oil the wheels of politics and power. At the same time, the critique of gifts as a necessary component of social communication intensified. Patron- client relationships were described as yielding to others at the cost of self- deprecation and gift-giving was presented as unquestioned bribery. Doubts emerged in the religious domain as well, concerning the gifts given to the Church to propitiate saints or buy prayers for the soul of the dear, and an attempt was made to add a measure if rationalization when diving Church property. Intimacy and personal friendship, issues discussed extensively in Montaine's writings, raised doubts concerning the role of gifts and personal gain in true friendship. Some basic assumptions in Mauss' pioneering study have been examined and criticized in recent studies dealing with gift exchanges in industrialized modern societies, or with simple societies affected by the international market economy. Annette Weiner draws a distinction between reciprocal gifts exchanges according to Mauss' model, and transfer of assets that expresses the identity of the group giving them away, but without renouncing the option of recovering them at a later stage. She refers to this option as “keeping-while-giving”. This type of giving neutralized the destructive and wasteful aspects ascribed to gift-giving29. This model is discussed below, when dealing with demands by the groom's or the bride's family to return gifts to the household property, which had been borrowed or given in the course of marriage ritual. Viviana Zelizer has persuasively shown how even money, the most impersonal and abstract instrument of capitalist economy, could serve as a personal gift30.

27. On gifts in the early Middle Ages, see J. HANNIG, “Ars donandi: Zur Ökonomie des Schenkens im frühen Mittelalter”, in R. VAN DÜLMAN (ed.), Armut, Liebe, Ehre: Studien zur historischen Kulturforschung, Frankfurt am Main, 1988, p. 11-37. 28. N.Z. DAVIS, The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France, Madison, 2000. 29. A.B. WEINER, Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving, Ber- keley, 1992. 30. V.A. ZELIZER, The Social Meaning of Money, New York, 1994.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein495 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 496 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

Pierre Bourdieu criticizes Mauss' position from a different perspective31. Presenting gift exchange as a three-staged process assumes a preset, binding structure. According to Bourdieu, however, the gift's considerable power derives precisely from the uncertainly in regard to reaction. Delays in reciprocating the gift will probably evoke curiosity and expectation, together with disappointment and anger over and unfulfilled duty, but reciprocating a gift too quickly could also be interpreted as a refusal and a rejec- tion of the original gift. No clear rules exist as to when to hasten or delay but only very general guidelines that, in different circumstances, could lead to antithetical responses. The main characteristic of the gift is its ambivalence — free, generous giving together with an expectation of reciprocity, gratuitous giving accompanied by the desire to control the gift's recipient32. These contrary trends can coexist due to a “deception” or an “open secret” accepted and known to all: we give being moved generosity but await a re- ward, expect a gift but fear its consequences. This approach removes the exchange of gifts from the category of individual, arbitrary acts, and confers meaning on them in a society that appreciates and encourages generous act. All community members internalized this judgment from an early age33. Generosity and education toward generosity have an important place in a society that emphasizes and educates toward the conversion of social and economic achievements into symbolic advantages such as respect, reputation, or honor: “Like the sense of honor (which can be the starting point for a series of murders), this disposition [for generosity] is acquired by being deliberately taught … or through early and prolonged exposure to social worlds in which it is the undisputed way of behavior. For someone en- dowed with dispositions attuned to the logic of the economy of symbolic

31. P. BOURDIEU, “Marginalia: Some Additional Notes on the Gift”, in SCHRIFT (ed.), The Logic of the Gift, p. 231-241; idem., Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, 1985, p. 8- 15, 53-54. 32. P. BOURDIEU, “Marginalia”, p. 231: “The major characteristic of the experience of the gift is, without doubt, its ambiguity. On the one hand, it is experienced (or intended) as a refusal of self-interest and egoistic calculation, and an exaltation of generosity — gratuitous, unrequited gift. On the other hand, it never entirely excludes awareness of the logic of exchange or even confession of the repressed impulses or, intermittently, the denunciation on another denied, truth of generous exchange — its constraining and costly character (‘a gift is a misfortune’, the Kabyles say)”. 33. Op. cit., p. 232-235: “All of them [social agents] have always been immersed in an social universe in which gift exchange in instituted in the form of an economy of symbolic goods. This quite distinctive economy is based both on specific objective structures and on internalized, embodies structures, dispositions … Concretely, this means that the gift as a generous act is only possible for social agents who have acquired — in social universe in which they are expected recognized and rewarded — generous dispositions”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein496 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 497

goods, generous conduct is not the product of a choice made by free will, a free decision made at the end of a deliberation that allows for the possibility of behaving differently; it presents itself as ‘the only thing to do'”34. The gift is the form of social communication in pre-modern societies, powerful not because of its conscious intentions, but rather due to the habits it instill in people, the physical gestures, the attendant rituality, the reverence to- wards the social institutions that benefit from gift exchange35. Gifts are one dimension of intensive forms of exchange. Economic ac- tivities such as depositing, borrowing, acquiring, or lending, which modern society views as different and mutually discrete, remain united in the gift. Giving a gift creates a link of commitment and social dependence. Accept- ance is sometimes filled by fears from the magic power of the other's property, and his power to affect the real and the divine world. The gift is the cardinal tool for breaking borders between strangers and enemies. The combination of these dimensions turns the gift, in Mauss' terms, into a “to- tal social phenomenon”36. This description enables us to discern how important gift giving was to Italian Jewish society in the late Middle Ages, and how it served to tie together several crucial dimensions of local culture (property, honor, family, sexuality).

The Patterns of Gift-Giving among Italian Jews in the Early Modern Period

In his response Colon confines his authorization to give sivlonot to the temaim ritual: “I have myself clarified at the opening, the midst, and the conclusion, beginning, end, and middle, and I have explained that I decided to allow sivlonot only after the kinyian, as I wrote at the opening”37. As we will see below this pattern of sivlonot giving is compatible with the familial and economic interests of householders, patresfamilias, or heads of families. Not surprisingly, in order to lend further credence to this ruling, Colon relies on “elders and honored members of the community”38. The public

34. Op. cit., p. 233. 35. Op. cit., p. 238-239: “It [the gift] transfigures economic capital into symbolic capital, economic domination (of the rich over the poor, master over servant, men over women, adults over children, etc.) to devotion, filial piety or love … For they [exchanges of gifts] become inscribed in the body itself in the form of belief, trust, affection and passion”. 36. M. MAUSS, The Gift, p. 1. 37. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 379. Colon recurrently emphasizes that he only allows sivlonot in the course of the tenaim ceremony. See also, op. cit., #170. 38. Op. cit., #170, p. 383. See also #171: “The eminent elder, Isaac Finzi, wrote well on this … According to what many honorable people attested before me, this is common and

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein497 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 498 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

character of the tenaim ritual and stringent precautions incumbent on the parties (recurring to mediators, the use of known ritual formulae) prevent observers and participants at the tenaim ritual from assuming that the gifts have created a new legal reality. Concerning gifts given in ways that devi- ate from this defined pattern, Colon concurs with his anonymous opponent and inclines toward a stringent ruling39. As resolutely as he had allowed gifts during the tenaim ritual, so was Colon determined to forbid them outside this context (“sivlonot sent later”), or during festivities. Even Purim, a time when Jews tended to the suspension and relaxation of accepted social restrictions40, as was common among their Christian neighbors during the Carnival, was not considered a suitable occasion for the couple to exchange gifts. A doubtful kiddushin was no laughing matter. The careful preservation of rules when transferring assets required additional precautions. Gifts had to be delivered through an emissary and given to the bride's representative, never to her personally41. The gift is supposed to express commitment between groups rather than between individuals. Colon, therefore, forbade the enclosure of love letters. Affectionate forms of address used in personal letters could, in his view, easily be interpreted as kiddushin formulae42. Despite Colon’s categorical statement that Italian Jews had a practice of giving gifts before the kiddushin and did not “fear sivlonot”, his ruling relate mainly to stringent Ashkenazi tradition of the

well-known …and even according to distinguished leaders close to us, such as those in Bolo- gna and in other communities whose opinion I requested … It is common knowledge that Italians were never accustomed to demand a divorce or Halitsah due to sivlonot, as the re- vered and illustrious elders of the land have attested. Since I wrote my first responsum, the respected elder Isaac [Finzi] had continued to write to me”. See also Colon, New Responsa and Rulings, #46, p. 206. 39. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 370: “We do not fear these sivlonot, since everyone is used to them, but his does not extend to sivlonot sent later, as the groom wishes. The leaders probably saw that the early authorities had no fear and, therefore, did not require divorce or Halitsah as a result of sivlonot exchange on the day of the kinyan [when both parties sign the matchmaking contract]. Hence we should certainly be more lenient concerning these sivlonot and this was my intention, as I clarified above. As for the sivlonot sent every year on the festival of Purim, known as ma’ot Purim, I tend to allow them, but I still pre- ferred not to refer to them at all”. 40. E.S. HOROWITZ, “The Rite to be Reckless: On the Perpetration and Interpretation of Purim Violence” Poetics Today 15, 1994, p. 9-54. 41. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #170, p. 359: “The practice is simple, namely, wherever it is customary to give sivlonot, it is done after the kinyian, and the sivlonot sent with a messenger are never received by the bride herself but by another woman … since the gifts could themselves constitute a form of kiddushin”; op. cit., #171; ibid., New Responsa and Rulings, p. 215. On the use of children as Ketubbah witnesses, see I. TA-SHMA, “Law, Custom and Tradition in Early Jewish Germany — Tentative Reflections”, Sidra. A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature 3, 1983, p. 45-46. 42. Colon, New Responsa and Rulings, p. 204.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein498 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 499

early Middle Ages43. He was strongly opposed to gifts given occasionally rather than at a preset time. Although Colon was not in the category of those “afraid to rule” — i.e. abstaining to submit in writing their legal opinions in controversial matters — he opted this time for silence (“pre- ferred not to refer to them at all”) and refrained from issuing a general ruling concerning gifts that did not comply with the strict and limiting patterns stated above44. The stubborn silence of the lead Ashkenazi halakhist in Italy at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries concerning sivlonot and gifts in the course of the marriage ritual was hardly a coincidence. Co- lon knew that gift exchanges were not restricted to the tenaim stage but were rather a persistent feature of the marriage ritual throughout, part of an extensive “gift culture” that was not necessarily compatible with halakhic injunctions. Crucial evidence of the local tradition of gifts appears in a writ documenting a transfer of assets between two wealthy families entering a marriage alliance. The writ records every single gift that the bride’s family gave to the groom and is family, beside the assets that the bride had received from her own family45. The lista [list] documented the usual and normative practices among well-established Jewish families in Italy during the first half of the seventeenth century. These family patterns were neither marginal nor exceptional. Quite the contrary, the writ attests to the accepted pattern in a long process leading to the establishment of a new family, during which property transference played a central role46. The gifts writ was one of several writs that accompanied the marriage ritual, documenting this gradual transference. It is clear that delivery is a group matter, planned and calculated to take place in public and leaving no room for personal, emotional expression47. The parties' careful noted the value of the gifts and the circumstances of their delivery, as well as the other items of family property transferred in the course of the marriage. The graphic aspect of the writ attests to the prominent economic role of gift exchanges; the list of gifts is

43. On Colon’s apprehensions that his words might be misinterpreted as an overall permit to give donations, see Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #171, p. 370. 44. Op. cit.: “Even more so if the groom occasionally later sends sivlonot to the bride, as he pleases rather than on set and agreed occasions. Strict rules should be enforced in this regard, as I told my friend when I wrote my first responsum”. 45. Copenhagen Ms., Royal Library 115/4, no pagination. 46. The crucial role of property and dowry in choosing a marriage partner, see R. WEIN- STEIN, Marriage Rituals Italian Style: A Historical Anthropological Perspective on Early Modern Italian Jews, Leiden, 2004, ch. 1. 47. For another instance specifically mentioning the public delivery of gifts during the tenaim ceremony, see K. STOW, The Jews of Rome, t. 2, Leiden, 1997, #1215, p. 509-513, a testimony from April 1552.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein499 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 500 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

written out in two parallel columns, resembling the lists kept by Jewish moneylenders, with a credit and debit column48. Families did not follow Colon’s halakhic injunctions. The lista mentions that the bride’s family gave presents to the groom on several occasions. The first was the kinyian gift, namely, the gift given at the tenaim ritual, which Colon does allow. This gift was followed by others on different occasions up to the wedding day: a banquet for guests on the kinyian day, Purim celebrations [“Ma‘ot Purim”]49, a gift when setting the wedding date, a gift to the groom on the eve of the ritual immersion, gifts to the bride when leaving her home for her wedding, and wedding gifts displayed on the table on the wedding day. This list, as noted, is one of the writs kept by the bride’s family, which is why it records the gifts that the bride’s family gave the groom. From the moment the matchmaking was agreed, the sequence of gifts was bilateral, and the groom and his family also gave gifts to the bride and her family, as testifies by R. Moses Provenzallo: “The simple custom prevailing in Ancona and elsewhere … is first to arrange the marriage and record a writ with all the conditions … and as soon as the match has been arranged, the groom visits the bride’s home and keeps bringing her gifts, including refreshments and jewelry, and we are not stringent with him concerning sivlonot” (my emphasis — R.W.)50. This alongside other evidences51 complete the detailed list and lay out before us a rich and diverse local tradition of mutual gift exchanges between the families of the groom and the bride.

48. For pages from the notebook of a Jewish money-lender, see D. CARPI, “On the His- tory of Jewish Lenders in Montepulciano during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries” (in Hebrew), in H. BEINART (ed.), Jews in Italy: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Umberto Cassuto, Jerusalem, 1988, p. 254-257. 49. The term ma‘ot Purim [Purim coins] appears in Colon’s response as well, as a further instance of a gift that the groom is forbidden to give the bride. 50. R. Moses Provinzallo, Responsa, #48, p. 124. 51. London Ms., British Museum 9152 (IMHM #6590), #140, p. 236b-237b, a responsum from Jacob Israel b. Raphael Finzi: “He [the future groom] often went to the bride’s house, and sent her food, dinks, clothes, and jewels, and they ate and drank together, sometimes alone and sometimes with others, and he gave her food, and drinks, and jewels in their presence … We should not accept his version that these sivlonot were given for kiddushin purpose, unless he brings clear evidence that he actually betrothed her though these gifts; Leon Modena, Historia de’riti ebraici, Modena, 1728, part 4, ch. 3; R. Moses Zacuto [Ha-Ramaz], Responsa, part Even ha-Ezer, Moshav Bitchah, 1993, #2, p. 133-134, a question concerning the return of sivlonot if wedding plans failed to materialize: “We have never heard or seen that, after returning the gifts and sivlonot, one side should defray the other’s expenses, neither those incurred by the bride’s side on the banquet and receptions for guests, for the groom, and for other visits of the groom and his kin, nor the expenses incurred by the groom’s side on horses, and carriages, and food, and hosting guests and on messengers, and clothes, and other fine things and gifts not visible to the eye …”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein500 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 501

During the lively debate surrounding “sivlonot fears” in sixteenth century Italy another comprehensive Responsum regarding the legal implications of sivlonot was composed, this time by R. Moses Provenzallo. This Responsum painstakingly documents local practice concerning wedding gifts, and adds a detailed ritual interpretation of the tenaim signing stage. It is exceptional in its length and level of detail, far exceeding those in other responsa and rulings issued by contemporary Italian rabbis. Like Colon’s Responsa, it can also be considered as a local halakhic monograph on the subject of sivlonot. In this case as well, the long Responsum is a reaction to the work of an anonymous sage, whom Provenzallo quotes at length in order to refute him. Unlike Colon, however, Provenzallo’s style is mild, and ends with a hope for reconciliation with his anonymous adversary, “and all who seek peace will be blessed by the Lord of peace, who blesses his people with peace …”52. The contents of the answer and the halakhic discussion also differ from these in Colon’s Responsa. A century of halakhic deliberation on this question, raising the same halakhic arguments and reaching the same expected conclusions — whereby local practice need not evoke “sivlonot fear” — seems to have worn out the halakhist. This could be the reason for the brief space devoted to the discussion of halakhic-formal arguments and their relegation to the end of the responsum relying on previous rulings, and mainly, as expected, on Colon. No less innovatory reason for relegating the halkhic discours to a second- ary plain is Provenzallo’s reading and interpreting gift-giving through the eyes of the participants. One is almost tempted to attribute it a modern anthropological perspective ante letteram. The elements of the ritual prove — following this interpretation — that this act lacks legal significance, and present the parties’ consensus regarding the agreement. The verbal formulae accepted in local tradition is a sure sign. The bride is asked: “‘Siete voi contenta di tor per vostro legitimo marito il tale’53 [Are you willing to take this man as your lawful husband] … and then [she is asked] ‘il quale vi darà ketubba e kiddushin [who will give you a ketubbah and kiddushin] by the law of Moses and Israel’”54. The tenaim ritual is a preliminary stage before the kiddushin, marking the ageement of the groom, the bride, and their families to the eventual implementation of the legal agreement just concluded. The wording of the question shows that the girl must give an explicit [and affirmative!] answer and accept the gifts in order to proceed to

52. R. Moses Provinzallo, Responsa, #78, p. 133a-b. 53. In the original manuscript, the Italian text is written in Hebrew letters. 54. Op. cit., p. 126a.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein501 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 502 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

the more significant ritual station, the wedding day, as another verbal formula clearly demonstrates: “According to what they told me, the usual practice is that the emissary tells her [the bride, during the tenaim ritual] in the foreign language [Italian], as follows: ‘Kallah, come ti piace dal parte del Chatan’ [Bride, how do you like this act of the groom] which is exactly the formulae [included at the wedding day] that family relatives and gift bearers use when placing their gifts on the table”55. Colon and Provenzallo contributed the most significant and exhaustive texts to the halakhic discussion in Italy on the issue of “sivlonot fears”. Their responsa, however, attest how far the halakhic discussion had changed, both in content and form, in the course of a century. The former set the terms of the halakhic discussion for over a century, through his categorical ruling that the Italian Jewish practice of “giving gifts before the kiddushin” is understood and widely accepted. No fear of doubtful kiddushin arises, then due to sivlonot. The influence of the early Ashkenazi tradition (Rashi, the Tosafists, R. Meir of Rothenbourg) is evident in that the permit to follow local custom was granted relying solely on formal legal considerations and was to be accompanied by precautions. By contrast, Provenzallo chose another course, although he was well versed in the arguments of previous halakhists. His acquaintance with local practice did not rely only on the testimony of “elders and honored members of the community” but on first-hand knowledge. In his view, issuing an opinion on the halakhic-legal status of gifts requires an understanding that the gift given during the tenaim is only one of many. From a legal perspective, this ritual occasion in not unique or usually significant. Fears of later sivlonot would justify forbidding gifts at the tenaim and vice-versa, if sivlonot are allowed at the tenaim, then gift giving at a later stage without fear of kiddushin should also be permitted. This is not an arbitrary analogy, since the role of the gifts is determined by the participants' consciousness and their interpretation of the giving, no less than by formal halakhic consideration. Provenzallo thus issued an a-priori lenient ruling concerning all the gifts given until the wedding day: “The applies to the publication of the match and to the giving of these or other gifts later, as sivlonot and as presents … The law concerning the matchmaking period is that these days are not to be considered as a ‘situation of speaking about kiddushin', and we should not fear that the sivlonot given at this time will lead to kiddushin”56.

55. Colon, Responsa, #170, p. 194. See also, in the same venue New York Ms., Columbia University X893T67, #34, p. 25a, response of Jehiel Trabot. 56. R. Moses Provinzallo, Responsa, p. 130a, 132b: “And if he sent her sivlonot daily, if the custom in this place was to give sivlonot and then perform the kiddushin … we have no sivlonot fears at all”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein502 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 503

Despite the differences between them, Colon and Provenzallo share an implicit assumption in their view of gifts as a communal matter and as the expression of an interfamilial shared interest. Gifts, rather than a token of emotional ties between the spouses, exposed the shared interest of wider circles participating in the creation of the marriage. Giving gifts is not a secret act but a public matter witnessed by many. The impersonal character of gift came to the fore in two institutional features: (1) The practice of “assessment” or precise estimate of the gifts' value. (2) The custom of returning many of them after the ritual use. The gifts given during the courtship period were displayed beside those that the groom and his family gave the bride up to the wedding day and beside gifts given by family relative from both sides. All gifts were collected and displayed “on the table” for all guests to see on the wedding day: “The groom committed himself to sign a Hebrew and a Christian write [at the town's notary] for the entire sum [of the dowry], adding a tithe [a supplement of about ten percent of the dowry added by the groom], the kiddushin ring, and a diamante e rubino [two rings with a diamond and a ruby] and half of the gifts place on the table at the time of the wedding banquet or before, as customary”57. Every gift was carefully appraised by two experts agreed by both sides, as was every item in the dowry the bride brought to the groom's home58. The Appraisal was recorded in the lista, a list detailing every item beside it estimated value59. These lists, of which a detailed example was noted

57. Mantua Ms., City Library 150 (IMHM #2278), p. 12a, responsa collection. See also London Ms., Jews’ College, Montefiore Collection 466 (IMHM #5366), p. 22a, tenaim writ: “Her kiddushin ring will always be hers, as well as half the doronot on the table from their relatives, and the sivlonot from each family will be returned to each side”; Paris Ms., Alli- ance Israelite 149 (IMHM #3397), p. 70, a tenaim writ from Padua 1715; Milan Ms., Ambrosiana Library X124Sup. (IMHM #12346), p. 9b; Copenhagen Ms., Royal Library 115/ 3 (IMHM #6927), no pagination, collection of tenaim writs, Moscow Ms., Ginzburg Collec- tion 251 (IMHM #27955), p. 3b, the bride’s father, after generously increasing her dowry, insisted on recoding the gifts “on the table”, which were to be returned to the bride’s father or his representatives if the couple divorced or the woman died childless; Budapest Ms., Jew- ish Theological Seminary 217 (IMHM #47145), p. 2b. 58. New York Ms., JTS Rabbinica 1094 (IMHM #43206), p. 58b, tenaim writ from 1452: “The dowry, her clothes, her jewels, the wedding gifts, the cost of her clothes and her jewelry as assessed by arbiters … one chosen by the bride’s father and the other by so-and-so the groom”. For further examples of a detailed and rigorous evaluation of assets during the wedding day, see New York Ms., Columbia University X893T67, #74, p. 55a-b, a case from 1511; Oxford Ms., Roth Collection 210 (IMHM #15350), p. 58a-b; Mantua Ms., City Li- brary 150, p. 12a; London Ms., Jews’ College, Montefiore Collection 466, p. 22b; Oxford Ms., Bodleian Library 67 (IMHM #21009), p. 164a-174b; Jerusalem Ms., Ben-Zvi Institute 4001 (IMHM #37910), p. 25b; New York Ms., JTS 1356 (IMHM #43360), p. 55a-59a. 59. Detailed accounts of wedding gifts [lista] are mentioned in Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 99 (IMHM 4195), p. 72-73, 111; Budapest Ms., Jewish Theological Seminary 217, p. 2b; Milan Ms., Ambrosiana Library X124Sup., p. 7b; Moscow Ms., Ginzburg Collec-

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein503 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 504 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

above, were kept by both sides. The lists were added to the “tenaim writ”, or the “tenaim renewal writ” drawn up and signed on the wedding day. The careful accounting procedures did not detract from the gifts' value. For the families, the “sentimental” valued of the gifts is thrust aside in favor of its role as a means of communication between groups and families. Gifts were viewed as part of the family's assets and, therefore, were often returned to the giver after their use for the ritual purpose on the wedding day or on any other event at which the family's wealth was displayed60. R. Leon Modena attests to this: “Gifts are not presents [in the full sense of the word] and they are returned. They will certainly be returned to the place in the household property. Trust- worthy witnesses have already told me that this has become common in our town. They have often heard from others that their fathers gave gifts of gold, precious stones, and clothing to their wives before and during the wedding, in order to take them back later on”61.

tion 289 (IMHM #27960), p. 245a; Mantua Ms., City Library 150, p. 12a; London Ms., Jews’ College, Montefiore Collection 466, p. 19a-b; Jerusalem Ms., Ben-Zvi Institute 4001, p. 25b; London Ms., British Museum 27131 (IMHM #5805), p. 145a. On the practice of the Torino community to record the gifts in detail in a separate list and in the tenaim writ, see L. ALLEGRA, Identità in bilico: Il ghetto ebraico di Torino nel Settecento, Torino, 1996, p. 170- 174. 60. On the theme of returning wedding gifts, see TB Bava Bathra, p. 146a; Shulhan Aruch, Even ha-Ezer, #50/3-4; Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Zekyiah u-Matanah 6:21; Turim, Even ha-Ezer, Hilkhot Kiddushin #50, 91. 61. Leon Modena, Responsa Ziknei Yehudah, Sh. Simonsohn (ed.), Jerusalem, 1956, #120, p. 169a. See also Mantua Ms., City Library 38 (IMHM #818), p. 79a, responsa of Abraham Menahem b. Jacob Rapoport: “A groom who gives as sivlonot gold and silver jewels to the bride so that she may appear beautiful, whether he gave them to her at the wedding or during the betrothal, this is not a full gift, even if he sends it and announces ‘the groom gives this to the bride’. This is not a full gift, and I have never heard anyone doubting this”. For a detailed discussion on the return of gifts, see R. Moses Zacuto, Responsa, Even ha- Ezer, #2, p. 133-134. For an interesting testimony by a dying man, see K. Stow, The Jews of Rome, t. 1, Leiden 1995, #712, p. 291: “We further asked him whether he wishes to give the betrothal object to his wife, Stella … And he himself said, with a clear mind, that he did not wish to leave any of the betrothal objects to her, that is, to Stella, and everything would return to his mother”. See also op. cit., #733, p. 295-296; New York Ms., JTS 1356, #31, p. 45a; Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 106 (IMHM #2984), p. 33, commentary of Abraham Joseph Salomon Graziano on Shulhan Aruch; Paris Ms., Alliance Israelite 149, p. 70, a tenaim writ from Padua 1615; Milan Ms., Abmrosiana Library X124Sup., p. 9b; London Ms., Jews’ College, Montefiore Collection 466, p. 22b; Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 146 (IMHM #14527), p. 203; Jerusalem Ms., Ben-Zvi Institute 4001, p. 25b. On the shame to the men when a woman takes the family property, see R. Azriel Dienna, Responsa, Y. Boksenboim (ed.), Tel-Aviv, 1977, #124, p. 428-429. See also the homilies by Abraham Menahem b. Jacob Cohen Rafa, Minhah Belulah, Verona, 1594, p. 100a: “And they came, both men and women [Exodus 35:22] means that women usually do not have full control of the jewelry they bring from their father’s house without their husbands’ involvement, but here [to create the golden calf], men and women agreed to donate them”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein504 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 505

The gifts are part of the family's assets or the “household property”, namely, of a wider setting including the family members, the servants, the house, the family name, and the shared family assets. In cases discussed in Responsa literature and in notarized documents, no clear-cut determination is made as to whether the borrowed gifts originate in the bride's family (the matrilineal side) or the groom's (the patrilineal side). Sometimes, the gift was given on the explicit condition that it would be returned after its use. Borrowing a gifts served short-term needs, at a time when displaying wealth and enhancing the personal and family' honor was important: “At that time when the said Jacob gave gifts to Reuben, his son, all freely and wholeheartedly agreed to acclaim himself and his son — as is a man, so is his greatness”62. To impress the spectators and guests at the wedding day, they lent-borrowed-gave (temporary) gifts, as they used other ritual means to convey wealth, luxury, and social status: meals speeches, music, and dance. Hence, the sumptuary ordinances limiting the expenses allowed at the wedding also included the use of unduly expensive gifts63. Italian Jews did not think it was unbecoming to negotiate the monetary value of the gifts that the groom would give the bride before the kiddushin. A letter from the first half of the seventeenth century recording the matchmaking negotiations (which ended in failure), shows that the value of the gifts required by the parties was directly proportionate to the size of the assets that would be eventually be exchanged between them64. A series of gifts between the families and the couple accompanied the marriage ritual throughout. Their importance is evident form the timing of their delivery, at significant stages of the ritual: the setting of the wedding date, the groom's visits at the fiancée's home, the groom's or the bride's ritual immersion in water, the bride leaving her parental home, and finally the wedding's eve. Gifts included chocolates, refreshments, personal boxes, rings or other jewelry, handkerchiefs, clothes, prayer books. Their main value is not their nominal cost but the role they played in the social communication and their semiotic value, attesting to the tightening of family bond. Their value increased because other members of the community witnessed the delivery. No gift is given secretly or in hiding; the gift draws it power

62. New York Ms., JTS 1356, #163, p. 312b, responsa of Yehiel Trabot. See also Mos- cow Ms., Ginzburg Collection 251, p. 173a-179a. 63. On the limitations imposed by sumptuary laws on the maximum amount to be spent on wedding gifts, see E. RODOCANACHI, Le Saint-Siège et les Juifs: Le Ghetto à Rome, Bolo- gna, 1972, p. 84-95. 64. Oxford Ms., Roth Collection 701 (IMHM #15514), p. 20a, a letter from 1638: “… concerning the wedding gifts that I gave later because I did not accept his offer [the bride’s father] of less than 200 ducatoni”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein505 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 506 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

from a deliberate and emphasized publicity. Gifts are the more negligible financial element within the marriage transaction, which prepares the participants toward the main assets transfer (the dowry) at the wedding. Notwithstanding the social role of gifts, the sensitive halakhic issues surrounding them could not be ignored. The endless halakhic controversy in Italy on the sivlonot issue attests that objections to local practice persisted throughout the sixteenth century. The more stringent halakhists raised anew the issues that Colon had refused to rule on: the recurrent giving of gifts, before kiddushin, accompanied by love letters, personally delivered by the groom to the bride, with limited parental or family supervision. All these features raise questions concerning the creation of an unintentional kiddushin alliance. By contrast, the consistent rulings of scholars and rabbis rejecting “sivlonot fears” attest that the defense of local practice was no less adamant. The Italian pattern of gift giving played too significant a role to be renounced, despite halakhic apprehensions. First, it emphasized free will (consensus, voluntas) as foundation of kiddushin65. The exchange of assets attested that both parties had remained faithful to the commitment they had publicly expressed in the original tenaim ritual. The time lapse between the signing of the writ and its full implementation on the wedding day and the first sexual encounter could extend for months, and sometimes even years. This (ritually) “empty space” was filled by a series of second- ary rituals acts, among them the giving of gifts. Furthermore, because these acts were public, they reiterated and reconfirmed a previous commitment. Gift giving in the presence of neighbors of relatives, or wearing the jewels the groom had sent to the intended bride, activated an informal mechanism of social control through “hearsay”: rumor played a significant role in the marriage ritual. Some of the more controversial family affairs in Italian Jewish society during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries began with the delivery of gifts to the bride that, through “hearsay”, were interpreted as acts of kiddushin. A symbolic transfer of assets, in small but repeated doses, strengthened the “cumulative effect” of the transition from singleness to a kiddushin as- sociation66. In other words, to the extent that property passed between the parties, the couple was viewed as betrothed. This exchange of gifts served not only to attest to the ongoing mutual consensus between the families, but

65. On the role of free will (consensus) as a constitutive element of kiddushin ritual in Italy, see WEINSTEIN, Marriage Rituals Italian Style, ch. 3. This pattern clearly draws from Catholic marriage ritual. 66. See WEINSTEIN, Marriage Rituals Italian Style, ch. 3, in conjunction with the work of Daniela Lombardi.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein506 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 507

also established and implemented the kiddushin act in stages. The analogy between the kiddushin and an act of acquisition was valid not only in regard to the one-time act of formal kiddushin effected through the transfer of a material object (mainly a ring), but could also be applied to a series of small gifts that gradually and cumulatively create kiddushin. Gifts exchanges were so crucial in the sequence leading to the establishment of a family that marriage in Italian Jewish narrative is unthinkable without gifts. One story in the anthology of novellae Gei Hizzayon, adapted for a Jewish audience a well-known tale from the international folk literature about a destitute girl who achieved greatness (meaning she married) despite her poverty67. This tale appeared in several literary versions and is known in Italy as “the story of Griselda”68. It crosses the cultural seam between Christian culture and the Italian-Jewish culture of storytelling, acquiring new narrative features in the process such as parallels to the biblical story of Ruth and the story of Joseph's salvation in Egypt. The bride is poor and her father cannot afford a dowry for her. In the social conditions prevalent in Italy, a girl in her condition would have remained single form many years or would have married some unsuitable. The girl's outstanding personal qualities compensate for the family's poverty, raising her value as a marriage candidate. Since the bride has no assets at all, the groom gave her his. The sivlonot to the bride are given after the kiddushin, contrary to local custom, yet this element is retained in the story of ‘good' marriage. Halakhic sources show that this was the practice in Italy in the exceptional circumstances of hasty kiddushin, which reversed the usual ritual course. In the Tamari-Venturozzo divorce, two men were involved in a bit- ter and sustained confrontation: a father of a young girl of marriageable

67. D. B. RUDERMAN (ed.), A Valley of Vision. The Heavenly Journey of Abraham ben Hananiah Yagel, Pennsylvania, 1990, p. 184-187. On the book and its literary orientation, see op. cit., p. 1-68. Ruderman identified the literary source of these stories: a collection of novellae by Nicolao Granucci (1522-1603). On the significance of sivlonot as a necessary component of the marriage bond, see another source of literary character, Budapest Ms., Jewish Theological Seminary 34 (IMHM #47029), p. 35a-b, biblical exegesis: “Previously, Jacob had thought that he could use the money given to him by his mother and father to take them both [Leah and Rachel] … that is, that he would have enough assets to give one cowry to Rachel and one to Leah. But when Elifaz, son of Esau, took all his money away, he was left with nothing … and since Jacob went to Laban’s house empty-handed, he had to work twelve years. This is puzzling. Could not Jacob have dispatched a letter to his father and mother to send him sivlonot to give to the women? You must therefore conclude that their intention was to send him to take a wife through the power of Torah and prayer”. 68. The poor bride who finds a rich husband thanks to her personal virtues is a common motif in folk literature. See Ch. KLAPISCH-ZUBER, “Le complexe de Griselda: Dot et dons de mariage”, in: La maison et le nom. Stratégies et rituels dans l’Italie de la Renaissance, Paris, 1991, p. 185-213. The author notes that his motif is mentioned in the Aarne & Thompson’s list of folktales motifs in various cultures.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein507 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 508 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

age, and the intended groom who managed to arrange a betrothal. The will to prevail in this tangle and humiliate the adversary let to endless squabbles about every detail. Yet both sides agreed on one detail, that gifts were given to the bride after the kiddushin. If the honor of the house, the family, and the groom were to be preserved, this stage could not be skipped. The bride's father, therefore, lent the groom a sum of money (with interest!) to buy the bride sivlonot69.

Gift Exchanges Between Youngsters

When Colon examined the sivlonot practice in Italy, he turned to the “elders and honored members of the community as a source of legitimate information. Other sources reflect as well the viewpoints of patresfamilias, heads of households, and rabbis who supported them, in considering the gift as communication between families, and regards to occasions of delivery. Sources do not describe the exchange of gifts out of specific interest in this pattern but in an attempt to define more clearly the borders between the normative and the forbidden, or the common and the exceptional. They provide thus an insight into another style of gift giving not fully controlled by adults but inherent in the”youth culture“of Italian Jews, which strongly re- sembled the lifestyle of youngsters in European Christian society in the early modern period70. The demographic profile of early modern Europe was extremely young. Large groups of youngsters were no longer directly supervised by their families of birth, but had not yet established families of their own. During the many years preceding marriage, they created a subculture of peer-groups with different leisure pattern and a separate lifestyle. Youths did not mean subvert the social norms known to them and were of-

69. The Chronicle (“of what happened between the distinguished R. Samuel, son of the eminent R. Moses of Perugia, and his betrothed from Venice … Printed here in Mantua, 5326/1566”), p. 2a. On the affair recounted here, see R. BONFIL, “Some Trifles on the Tamari-Venturozzo Divorce Affair” (in Hebrew), in D. CARPI, A. OPENHEIMER, M. ROSEN (ed.), Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume. Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period, Tel-Aviv, 1993, p. 19-28. See also Moscow Ms., Ginzburg Collection 251, p. 173a-179a, the groom became temporarily insane and his bride was therefore quickly betrothed to another man, but they still received gifts after the hasty kiddushin ceremony. Another case appears in Mantua Ms., City Library 88 (IMHM #874), no pagination, responsa collection: Reuven arranged a match between his daughter and Simon’s son and set aside a dowry for her, and Simon undertook that his son would shortly come to the bride’s place and set up a house there, and would bring one hundred florins with him “from his father’s assets, to buy gifts for the bride, and buy goods to earn a living from them and save his life [Genesis 19:19], since the said hundred florins were his assets, given to him by his father”. 70. WEINSTEIN, Marriage Rituals Italian Style, ch. 6.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein508 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 509

ten their most loyal protectors, punishing their transgressors in collective rituals. The tension between youngsters and adults was not channeled into a counter-culture of protest, but into an alternative use of the familiar cultural patterns71. Marriage was a natural area for confrontation or cooperation between adults and youngsters. Although adults wished to control the ritual and impose the family strategy, they also acknowledged the youngsters' power to express their personal desires and to influence the ritual's course. The use of assets throughout the marriage ritual was another means for controlling the younger generation. Personal gifts between young men and women were assigned a place in the ritual, obviously controlled and supervised by adults. The first step was at the tenaim ritual: the two families met and allowed the youngsters to meet face to face, often for the first time. The duty of female modesty or the protection of the family's and the father's honor, which required the segregation of young men and women, were temporarily suspended during the brief period of the tenaim celebration. The parents allowed brief physical contacts between the future bride and groom. An anonymous sixteenth century halakhist critically described the occasion: “When he himself [the groom] gives the sivlonot to the bride, this leads to”sivlonot fears“, and even more so when he himself places the sivlonot on her body, and other licentious matters”72. What had hitherto been perceived as ‘vergogna’ [dishonor] to the paterfamilias and the girl, served the interests on both families. This first, brief contact was probably very excit- ing to the young couple, but also fulfilled another crucial ritual role serving to justify it to adults. Through this contact, the youngsters conveyed their unequivocal consent to the agreement and to their future marriage. What the halakhist had critically described as “licentious matters” or as an act creating a doubtful kiddushin, is merely an attempt on the part of adults to make the courtship stage part of the family ritual. Its removal could be far more costly, as attested by contemporary marriage scandals.

71. E.S. HOROWITZ, “Mondi giovanili ebraici in Europa, 1300-1800,” in. G. LEVI and J.-Cl. SCHMITT (ed.), Storia dei giovani, Roma-Bari, 1994, p. 101-157. For a description focused on Italian youth subculture, see R. WEINSTEIN, “‘Thus Will Giovani Do’: Jewish Sub- culture in Early Modern Italy”, in. K. EISENBICHLER (ed.), The Premodern Teenager: Youth in Society 1150-1650, Toronto, 2002, p. 51-74; IDEM., “Rituel du mariage et culture des jeunes dans la société judeo-italienne, 16e-17e siècle”, Annales. Histoire Sciences Sociales 53, 3, 1998, p. 455-479. 72. BOKSENBOIM, Responsa Matanot Ba-Adam, #115, p. 199-200. Apprehensions about the possibility of physical closeness being interpreted as a betrothal act surfaces in Colon’s responsa cited above (Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #170, p. 359); idem, New Responsa and Rulings, p. 215.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein509 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 510 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

The venue for giving the gifts epitomized the power struggles within the family between controlling figures (the father, uncle, or elder brothers) and the unmarried youngsters. In Jewish-Italian society, as in other Medi- terranean societies, the woman must remain in her home under the protection of the men to ensure her personal safety, and preserve her virginity and her reputation. Meeting outside the house was problematic because of the restrictions affecting the girl, and meeting in the house was to- tally forbidden. As a default option, courtship often proceeded in some middle course in a liminal area of the house where the outside — the street — and the inside — the domestic space, meet. In some of the more controversial sixteenth-century courtship stories, the couple met through the window: “True guidelines to dismiss the groundless slander claiming that sivlonot were given for kiddushin purpose. The first [claim] is that he spoke to Miss Luna, who was his intended, and told her from the hole in the basement of his house, from which Miss Luna's house was visible, and that he wished to send her sivlonot for kiddushin because her father was a liar and he feared he might steal her from him. He then wrote in his notebook that his brother had spoken with her from the window of his house, which was only half a cubit away from her window”73. The plot, only partially reported above, describes a power struggle between fathers and their unmarried children. The girls' father had arranged a match with a young man, and then decided to breach the agreement. The match was probably cancelled for a better one, or that new detail became known about the previous candidate that prompted the bride's father to go back on his decision. The youngster feared that the match was about to slip away from him and acted to thwart the father's plan. The intended groom reacted to what he saw as an injustice in a manner typical of youngsters, using the ritual's normative components in alternative ways. He succeeded in persuading the girl to act against her family's interest and accept sivlonot through the window of her house. The venue of the delivery and its legal meaning transcended the customary implications of sivlonot. The gift was given through the window, for the purpose of kiddushin (“to send her sivlonot for kiddushin”). The ritual shifted from the inside of the house to the liminal border, and the gift turned from an instrument of courtship into a kuddushin act imposed on the parents. Repeated gifts of small object or refreshments could blur the border between a doron [present], implying a personal gift, and kiddushin. This blurring served the interests of young men hoping to impose kiddushin on

73. Strasbourg Ms., National and University Library 4086 (IMHM # 3961), p. 273.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein510 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 511

women, as well as cynical “dowry hunters”74. Yet the cases that occupied Italian rabbis throughout this period are an exception in the many courtship encounters between women and men who exchanged personal gifts without fear of kiddushin, and without any intention of forcing the woman into an unwanted marriage. The gifts were accompanied by words of affection and closeness such as “my love” or “to remind you of my love” or “you are mine” [tu sei mia]. Even geographic distance did not prevent youngsters from keeping a stream of gifts going through emissaries or accompanies by love letters75. Love letters between youngsters about to marry were cultur- ally recognized within the creative spectrum of Italian Jews. In one of the most important sixteenth century letter manuals (Ma‘ayan Ganim, first edi- tion 1553), Samuel Archivolti devoted an entire section to letters of courtship and love, including letters exchanged between youngsters76. A love letter was viewed as a gift in itself due to the considerable effort of delivering it personally and discreetly to the girl. It conveyed the sense of a special and intimate space, created for and by the young unknown to the others. These letters were accompanied by small object and by personal gifts [doronot]. The link between hidden love letters and the exchange of

74. New-York Ms., Columbia University X893T67, #74, p. 55a-b, responsa of Jehiel Trabot, a case from 1511: “About four years ago or more, he sent through the said David sivlonot to Hannah, with whom a match had been arranged. He sent a tassoto [small tray] with gold and pearls, and later testified that he personally gave to her in his presence a corallo [coral], estimated by him to be worth around one ducato. While giving her the said object, he said to her ‘I have sent to you the said sivlonot through my envoy, David, and now I give this object to you directly so that you will remember my love.’ She took it gladly, and they were then joined by two esteemed individuals [the betrothal witnesses].” See also Buda- pest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 134, p. 274: “She also took it as a gift, since she told us, the witnesses [the women who had witnessed the delivery of the gift], ‘Look, my fiancé sent this cotton cloth as a gift [rather than saying it was a kiddushin token],’ and she also said so about the necklace [as she had said about the previous gifts]… the witnesses, then, did not know that he had intended these for kiddushin purposes but rather as a gifts.”; Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 150 (IMHM # 32246), #17, p. 71, the man gives a gift to the woman with whom a match had been arranged for him “as a token of love and affection and to become his beloved.” The expression “dowry hunters” appears in R. BONFIL, Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, Berkeley, 1994, p. 260. 75. Colon, New Responsa and Rulings, p. 204. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 134, p. 93, a responsum from 1519 by Israel b. Jehiel Ashkenazi, when giving the sivlonot, the man said, “take them, tu sei mia [you are mine].” 76. Samuel b. Elhanan Archivolti, Ma‘ayan Ganim, Venice, 1553, p. 5b-6a: “In the fifth section [of the manual], which is last but not least, women will gather courage and learn how to answer sensibly the ardors of their wooers, to love a lover and hate an enemy … A lover writing to his beloved will beg for her favors saying “it is love or death”. You should understand the intense passion of these saying. Responding to the lover, the gazelle will stoke the flames of his love for her, ensnare him in the net of her works, beguile him with glibness, lure him with her smooth tongue”. On the importance of love letters and the role of love during youth, see idem., Degel Ahavah, Venice, 1511, introductory page.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein511 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 512 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

doronot is also clearly evident in the Purim play ∑aÌot BediÌuta de- Kiddushin [A Comedy of Betrothal]77. The play was a burlesque representa- tion of family life and of the stumbling blocks on the way to establishing a new family. It hinges on the intrigues against adults by young people look- ing for rescue from the marriage plans their parents had tried to impose on them. Throughout the play, the youngsters meet in secret, address each other affectionately, and give their beloved letters and gifts. For the adults, the gift became part of the assets transferred during the marriage, therefore well-documented in various legal writs (the tenaim writ, the gifts writ, the dowry writ, the ketubbah). The gifts were given under will-defined conditions and “signaled” to the public the increasing bonds between the families. The youngsters added another layer, personal and emotional. Colon had been aware of this dimension when he described the characteristics of the Italian gift: “We learn from R. Samuel78 that he did not send the gifts to the betrothed but to the house of his father-in-law in her honor, though not as a special gift to her as Italian do, even if the gift included jewelry meant for her”79. Youngsters did not send the gift to the parents' home but to their intended bride, as a personal gift, “special for her”. For many Jewish youths in the early modern period, a distinction is required between an adult gift, which is simulata e finta [deceit and false- hood]80 and the true gifts given by youngsters. Personal gifts belong to the intimate space shared by the young, where the control of parents or other power holders in the community remains limited. The marriage ritual is an economic contract between heads of families, but also an intensive time for the youngsters to discover their personal feelings and erotic needs, and for creating close contacts outside the family circle. A new space of privacy and intimacy developed in the seventeenth century within the growing European bourgeoisie. Love letters became widespread, and whole rituals developed around them to express emotional

77. Leone SOMMI, A Comedy of Betrothal, A. S. GOLDING (ed.), Ottawa. 1988. 78. The reference is to the amora Samuel, who describes in TB Bava Bathra, p. 146a the practice whereby the groom sends gifts to his father-in-law. 79. My emphasis. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, # 171, 371. 80. The expression appears in Vienna Ms., National Library 24 (IMHM #1303), p. 120a, a gift writ from a brother to his sister after a match had been arranged for her, Ferrara 1561: “A full gift, open and public, everlasting and not to be returned, the sum of 500 scudi… and not a simulation and fake with ulterior motives, known in their language as donazione simulata e finta, but an indisputable and uncontestable gift.” For a very early definition of a full gift, see Modena Ms., Estense Library 58 (IMHM # 14965), p. 18b, from a fourteenth century writs collection, a writ listing the gifts from a fiancé to his fiancée: “A clear and public gift, absolute and indisputable, of which she will have complete ownership, to inherit, be- queath, and give to whom she pleases”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein512 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 513

closeness. Personal letters were accompanied by small personal object, jewelry, or gifts, whose meaning and secret signals only the couple could encode. Gift giving as a personal expression conveyed the uniqueness of the lovers' relationship. Evidence is given by the thousands of contemporary medallions with images of the beloved, which grooms and brides wore as pendants or concealed in private places81. Jewish youngsters also sent personal portraits directly, or through the family82.

Casting Doubts and Criticism on Local Customs

Colon's unequivocal ruling and his high standing among Italian halakhists at the beginning of the sixteenth-century could ostensibly have stopped this discussion at the outset, but this is not what happened. Why, then, the drawn out controversy? According to Colon, the stir was caused by “upstarts”, French sages who are “not of the elders of this land and its inhabitants”, and whose practice was to hold the kiddushin first and then give sivlonot83. This claim, however, is hard to accept at face value. At best, it may explain the beginning of the dispute at the end of the fifteenth-century. Why would the halakhic objection of a small and uninfluential community of immigrants (unlike those from Ashkenaz or Spain) sustain a hundred-year controversy? Despite reservation about the direct link between the sivlonot controversy and the French sages, Colon was not wholly mistaken. New immi-

81. On the culture of gifts in early modern Europe, see O. RANUM, “The Refuges of Inti- macy,” in R. CHARTIER (ed.), A History of Private Life, t. 3, Cambridge (Ma.), 1989, p. 217- 258; DAVIS, The Gift in Sixteenth-Century France; S. SCHAMA, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age, New York, 1987, p. 444-454. 82. Oxford Ms., Roth Collection 701 (IMHM #15514), p. 5b, letters collection: “May it pleases Your Honor [the father of his fiancée] to answer my request and send me as you had promised, a picture of my bride, may she be blessed, so that I may delight in her splendor, until it pleases God to hasten my delivery soul from the torture of his long wait to possess her [after marriage] and for us to relish the raptures I love more than any other joy of pleasure. May your discretion count in your favor, and may you revive my soul by answering my request”. On the growing importance of portraits and their use in early modern Jewish culture in Europe, see R.I. COHEN, “The Visual Image of the Jew and Judaism in Early Modern Eu- rope” (in Hebrew), Zion 57, 3, 1992, p. 275-340; IDEM., “‘And Your Eyes Shall see Your Teachers’: The Rabbi as Icon” (in Hebrew), Zion 58, 4, 1993, p. 407-452. See also A. BRENER, “Portrait of the Rabbi as Young Humanist: A Reading of Elijah Capsali’s ‘Chronicle of Venice,’” Italia: Studi e Ricerche sulla Storia la Cultura e la Letteratura degli Ebrei d’Italia 11, 1994, p. 37-60. 83. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #170, p. 357. See also IDEM, New Responsa and Rulings, p. 206, 217: “Some of the upstart French teachers have questioned it [local practice]… [Ashkenazi practice] is different from this [lo‘azi] practice, as I wrote above, and the lo‘azim unquestionably give sivlonot first and then betroth”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein513 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 514 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

grants to Italy undermined local customs. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the sharpest writings and public controversies around sivlonot erupted in the larger communities, which were the main arena of communal tensions: Rome, Florence, Ancona, and perhaps Padua as well. The Rome community was made up of various groups worshipping in separate synagogues. The sivlonot cases recorded here all took place mostly around the 1520s, the time of the harsh battles between the “Italiani” and the “Ultramontani” that ended in the compromise mediated by Daniel of Pisa (1524). The sivlonot controversy was an appropriate tool for emphasizing the differences between the communities and sharpen other conflicts as well (“the performed the kiddushin and then publicly gave sivlonot … they did the opposite and confirmed the practice of first kiddushin and then sivlonot, and not the lowest among them did this … and not once but twice … and although he warned them before witnesses they still did it a second time”). Sivlonot practices could serve as a convenient excuse to undermine communal authority without directly attacking the leaders. In the course of these conflicts, which had already transcended ethnic identity, some raised a claim unusual in the Italian context, stating that the Roman practice left room for “sivlonot fears”84. The diversity of the communities in Rome, the central city in the consciousness of Italian Jews, may have led to the ban- ning trend, resembling the halakhic dynamics that developed in the Smirna (Izmir) community85. The original founders of the Ancona, Padova, and Florence communities were Jewish “Italiani” bankers, and later immigrants questioned their au- 84. Budapest Ms., Kaufmann Collection 150, #13, p. 45-55. The responsum records two cases in Rome, within a span of two years, of “doubtful betrothal” [kiddushei safek] due to bestowal of gifts. Following the first case, “the said rabbis and other sages called the people in charge and the community leaders… to an inquiry, and they took an oath while holding the Torah scroll in the synagogue. They then asked whether anyone in the congregation knew that the practice of this community was to betroth first and then give sivlonot, and trustworthy people testified that they had seen and known congregation members who had first betrothed and then given sivlonot.” The outcome was still the same, namely, dismissing any fears concerning the legal implications of sivlonot. The second case deals with a more serious infringe- ment of community regulations “by community leaders, and the more prominent and respect- able among them, not once but several times, one of them going as far as creating a precedent concerning his daughter and then his granddaughter within one month, and although an elder sent him a warning [hatra‘ah] before witnesses the first time, he did not fear repeating this.” For further evidence of the contemporary Roman ordinance forbidding kiddushin before sivlonot, see op. cit. #15, p. 57-60. See also Stow, The Jews in Rome, t. 2, #1203, p. 1381. On contemporary inter-ethnic relationships in Rome, see A. TOAFF, The Ghetto of Rome in the Sixteenth Century: Ethnic Conflicts and Socioeconomic Problems (in Hebrew), Ramat-Gan, 1984, p. 11-41; STOW, The Jews in Rome, t. 1, p. xi-lxix. On the increase in inter-ethnic marriages, see IDEM, “Ethnic Rivalry or Melting Pot: The ‘Edot’ in the Roman Ghetto”, Judaism 41, 1992, p. 286-296. 85. See the testimony of Joseph Caro, Responsa Bet-Yosef, Dinei Kiddushin, #1.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein514 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 515

thority. R. Provenzallo wrote his essay to the Ancona community when immigrants from Sicily, from the kingdom of Naples, and mainly ex- Conversos, were arriving in the city in response to an invitation issued for economic reasons86. Sources attest to a struggle for authority in the Padua community as well, between the older bankers' leadership and the Ashkenazi rabbinate, newly strengthened in the late fifteenth-century by the arrival of a large wave of Ashkenazi immigrants87. Florence preserved its “Italian” character at this time, as evidenced from the local prayer books. The sivlonot controversy attest to the power of local custom and the desire to cling to it88, and Colon wrote his two long response at the request of this public. The questioning of local practice led communal leaders to request the first (anonymous) ruling. After the public refused to abide to his stringent assertions, they approached Colon hoping to encounter a more lenient ruling concerning sivlonot. According to immigrants who came to Italy from Ashkenaz, Spain, North Africa, and the East, local practice entailed a breach of Halakhah and created a situation of doubtful kiddushin. Rabbis approached conjugal law as one of the most sensitive areas of Jewish law due to the fear of marrying a woman already married, and the consequent birth of bastard children. Hence the need for a rigorous distinction between a regular assets transfers (irrelevant to personal status), and an assets transfer creating a marriage bond, be it a doubtful one. According to the immigrants, the practice of Ital- ian Jews blurs the boundaries set up in Halakhah and creates, unintentionally and unwittingly, situations of doubtful kiddushin. One could add the increasing stringency in this regard in Sephardic legal tradition during this period.

86. R. Moses Provinzallo, Responsa, #78, p. 124, referring to Ancona. On Ancona, see R. SEGRE, “Nuovi documenti sui Marrani d’Ancona (1555-1559)”, Michael: On The History of The Jews in The Diaspora 9, 1985, p. 130-159; L. ASTROLOGY-FONZI, “Das Autodafe der Marranen von Ancona im Lichte der Beziehungen zwischen italianischen und portugie- sischen Juden”, Studia Judaica Austriaca 13, 1992, p. 135-144, including further referen- ces. 87. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #29, p. 61, concerning the rabbis of Padua compel- ling a divorce. The text remains ambiguous as to whether the ruling issued by the Paduan rabbis relates to the specific circumstances or sets a principle, regardless of concrete details. On ethnic interaction in Padua, see D. CARPI, Minutes Book of the Council of the Jewish Commu- nity of Padua, 1577-1603, Jerusalem, 1974, p. 14-16; IDEM., The Jews of Padua during the Renaissance, 1369-1509 (in Hebrew), Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University, 1967, p. 82- 107. 88. Colon, Comprehensive Responsa, #170-171. On the ethnic composition and the man- agement of the Florence community, see U. CASSUTO, Gli ebrei a Firenze nell’età del Rinascimento, Florence, 1918, p. 30-37, 212-220.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein515 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 516 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

Gift in the Christian Marriage Ritual in Italy

Urban society in Italy during the Middle Ages created a unique “economic” ethos on the accumulation and use of wealth89. No longer as a tool for redemption nor an excuse for charity to the needy, the accumulation of wealth came to be perceived as a self-justified end, or as a means for acquiring political status in the city, or for conspicuous consumption. This attitude to wealth in Italian urban society is evident from many sources, including family memoirs [libri di ricordanze] written by patresfamilias, or handbooks to the youths90. The preservation of accumulated wealth and its transfer to the next generation were recurrent themes in guidelines to children. Marriage was presented as an optimal opportunity to preserve the family' wealth and connections, and even expand them through the appropriate communication. Considerations of family strategy in the choice of spouses and in the conduct of the negotiations resemble the brokering leading to financial transactions. Alessandra Strozzi, whose letters to her family in exile often dealt with family issues and matchmaking, categorically rules “chi to' donna vuol danari” [he who marries a woman wants money]91. Studies by Klapisch-Zuber and others show that despite the prominent emphasis on economic that underlies the creation of a new family, the urban marriage ritual in Italy was accompanied by numerous gift exchanges92.

89. On the attitude to property in late medieval Italian society, see R. DE ROOVER, San Bernardino and Sant’ Antonino of Florence: The Two Great Economic Thinkers of the Mid- dle Ages, Boston, 1967; IDEM, Business, Banking, and Economic Thought in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Selected Studies of Raymond de Roover, (éd.) J. Kirshner, Chi- cago, 1976, esp. p. 273-305. See also S.K. COHN, Death and Property in Siena, 1205-1800: Strategies for the Afterlife, Baltimore, 1988; A. FANFANI, Le origini dello spirito capitalistico in Italia, Milano, 1933. 90. On family books [libri di famiglia], see CICCHETTI and MORDENTI, “La scrittura dei Libri di Famiglia; Ch. BEC, Les marchands écrivains. Affaires et humanisme à Florence 1375-1434, Paris, 1967. 91. The reference appears in L. FABBRI, Alleanza matrimoniale e patriziato nella Firenze del 400, Studio dulla famiglia, Florence, 1991, p. 66. See also op. cit., a moral lesson by a paterfamilias from a novella by Giraldo Cinzio (second half of the sixteenth century): “Nei matrimoni è prima da considerarla la quantità della dote e poi la donna, perchè non arricchiscono le case le virtù delle donne, ma la facoltà ch’elle in casa del marito portano” [The first issue to consider in a marriage is the amount of the dowry and then the woman, since not the virtue of women enriches the home, but the property they bring to the homes of their husbands]. 92. KLAPISCH-ZUBER, “The Griselda Complex”; dem, “Les femmes dans les rituels de l’alliance et de naissance a Florence,” in CHIFFOLEAU et al. (éd.), Riti e rituali nelle società medievali, Spoleto, 1994, p. 12-19. On a marriage extensively documented in legal testimo- nies and describing gifts to the groom and bride, see G. BRUCKER, Giovanni and Lusana: Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence, London, 1986, passim. See also E. BESTA, “Gli usi nuziali del Veneto e gli statuti di Chioggia”, Rivista Italiana per le Scienze Giuridiche 26, 1898, p. 205-219.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein516 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 517

The dowry system granted considerable economic advantages to the groom's side. Until the end of the Renaissance, however, all social classes in Italy preserved archaic marriage traditions that had been in force before the dowry system became dominant93. The groom was responsible for pro- viding his wife a counter-trousseau [contradote] of clothes and jewelry and for preparing a conjugal room his expenses could oscillate between a third and two thirds of the dowry's value. The assets brought by the husband bal- anced the dowry payments on the bride's side. Beyond its economic role, however, the contardote also had a symbolic value in its integration of both families' assets. The conjugal room that the husband prepared symbolized the wife's passage from her family to the husband's lineage. The groom also bought the trunks [cassoni] needed to transport the bride's trousseau to his house. The bridal procession carried the trunks, publicly displaying their new and shared lodgings and the coming consummation [consummatio] of the marriage. Following the symbolic assets given as gifts [donora, donationes], the potential economic advantages that the man could draw from the marriage diminish significantly. The rules of the “marriage market”, based on monetary supply and demand, do not fully explain the process of choosing a bride even in the wealthy urban classes. The symbolic transfer of property remained a necessary element in the Italian marriage ritual. The man's gifts to the woman play a clear role in the marriage traditions of Europe and Byzantium. The creation of a legal marriage — as opposed to prostitution, concubinage, or relationships with women serfs or slaves — was always accompanied by a property transfer of defined value, or of symbolic assets. In Italy different social classes marked the betrothal through an exchange of property and gifts, delivered at a festive occasion even before most assets were transferred, when the bride moved to her husband's home94. Engagement rings were given to create a new and binding legal status [fidanzamento], but were counted among the gifts that the groom gave the bride. At times, a distinction was drawn between the two roles of the ring, and the ring was only given as a gift after the wedding ceremony95. In wearing the groom's gifts, mainly jewelry, the bride conveyed her agree-

93. D. OWEN-HUGHES, “From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe”, Journal of Family History 3, 1978, p. 263-296. 94. S. EPSTEIN, Wills and Wealth in Medieval Genoa 1150-1250, Cambridge (Ma.), 1984, p. 103-107. 95. Br. WITTHOFT, “Riti nuziali e loro iconografia”, in M. DE GIORGIO, Ch. KLAPISCH- ZUBER (éd.), Storia del matrimonio, Roma-Bari, 1996, p. 132. She refers to the marriage of Bartolomeo Sassetti, who wrote, “Priore la sposò e diedela l’annello” [first I married her, and then I gave her the ring].

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein517 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 518 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

ment to the future marriage. Girls who refused the family's matchmaking arrangements rejected the groom's gifts as well, despite the outrageous consequences of this act96. These practices were perhaps later evolvements of traditions founding roman and Lombard law. Roman law did not recognize marriages that did not include assets transfer between the parties. Children born from such marriages were not entitles to inherit family assets, as if they had been illegitimate97. In light of this tradition, the Catholic Church in Italy did not agree to bless a marriage unless assets transfers or gifts were involved. The Lombard conquest of Italy in the early Middle Ages added a layer of Germanic traditions. The Morgencap gift was given to the bride after the wedding night as a sing of or a price for her virginity. The type and value of the fits were largely dictated by local traditions, gender differences, or class. Most of the documentation was obtained from adult males belonging to wealthy urban families. An important source is the book by Altieri, a Roman aristocrat form the late sixteenth century, who devoted a long and detailed treatise to the description of the marriage ritual98. The expensive wedding gifts in wealthy urban classes were considered part of the family property and recorded in a list [lista] that was sometimes added to the dowry agreement, or noted in the family book. Givers often expected the gifts, which were considered household property, to be returned. Property was the public expression of the family' wealth and honor, and should therefore be returned to the original owners after use. Giving it to the bride for a limited period conveyed the bride's detachment from her family of birth and her integration in the new family. Gift traditions followed known rules in Italy's different regions, and were given at every significant stage in the marriage ritual, publicly “signaling” its progress. Celebrations of the wedding day included family gatherings, gift giving, and an additional display of generosity — festive banquets99.

96. L. FERRANTE, “Il matrimonio disciplinato: processi matrimoniali a Bologna nel Cinquecento”, in P. PRODI (éd.), Disciplina dell’anima, disciplina del corpo e disciplina della società tra medioevo et età moderna, Bologna, 1994, p. 917. The refusal to accept a gift could combine with other gestures, such as crying or turning away from the intended groom, to denote the girl’s opposition to the candidate chosen by her parents or her family, see D. LOMBARDI, Matrimoni di antico regime, Bologna, 2001, p. 205-209, 246, 271. 97. J. GAUDEMET, “Les legs du droit romain en matière matrimoniale,” in Il Matrimonio nella società altomedieval: Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 24, 1976, p. 139-179. 98. The description of Altieri’s book appears in Ch. KLAPISCH-ZUBER, “An Ethnology of Marriage in the Age of Humanism”, in Women, Family and Ritual, p. 247-260. 99. Significant stages in the marriage process were ‘marked’ not only through gifts exchanges but also through festive banquets. See Ch. KLAPISCH-ZUBER, “Les noces florentines et leurs cuisiniers”, in M. AURELL, O. DUMOULIN, Fr. THELAMON (ed.), La sociabilité à table, Mont-Saint-Aignan, 1992, p. 193-199.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein518 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 519

A different type of documentation is the legal proceedings of urban and ecclesiastical courts100, which reflected the family traditions of the city' large and varied population: servants, poor artisans, youngsters living alone, without their parents. Courtship between such young men and women could lead to marriage, with the families' partial knowledge of despite their opposition. The gift was a way of meeting and of drawing closer in a process of “socialization of lovers”101, toward a confirmation of the bond between them and its proclamation in front of other youths. The gifts were of small value, since meetings between young persons unaccompanied by adults were mainly a lower class event. The gifts included personal objects or small items of clothing. A current practice in Tuscany was for the intended bride to give gifts to her future husband, convey her agreement to the marriage102. Some of the wedding presents were given only by and for women103.

Summary: The “Gifts Culture of Italian Jews”

The sivlonot the groom gives the bride before the wedding caused a wide halakhic turmoil in Italy among hundred and fifty years. The variety of sources unquestionably attests to the importance of this issued in the local perception104. The one who actually opened up this matter for public discussion was an Ashkenazi rabbi, Joseph Colon, who recorded the main practices of sivlonot giving in Italy and issued a ruling accepted by most Italian halakhists. External observers detected a considerable difference between the Italian practice and family traditions originating in Spain, Ashkenaz, or the East. 100. On courtship gifts among the less wealthy and other “folkloric” traditions concerning wedding gifts, see G. RUGGIERO, The Boundaries of Eros: Sex Crime and Sexuality in Renaissance Venice, Oxford and New York, 1985, p. 157-161; A. DE GUBERNATIS, Storia comparata degli usi nuziali in Italia, p. 112-121; LOMBARDI, Matrimonio di antico regime, Milan, 1878 (offset 1990), p. 206-209, 248, 305. 101. The expression is taken from SCHAMA, The Embarrassment of Riches, p. 444-454. 102. LOMBARDI, Matrimoni di antico regime, 208-209. 103. Ch. KLAPISCH-ZUBER, “Les femmes dans les rituels de l’alliance et de la naissance à Florence”, in J. CHIFFOLEAU, L. MARTINES, A. PARAVICINI BAGLIANI (éd.), Riti e rituali nelle società medievali, Spoleto, 1994, p. 3-22. These gifts, mainly rings, symbolized the wife’s integration in the feminine wing of her new family. The rings were part of an extensive net- work of feminine gifts, marking important moments in family life that granted women ritual primacy, such as birth and nursing, the baby’s baptism, marriage, and the woman’s move to the groom’s house. Gifts marked the lines of family identity. 104. H. SOLOVEITCHIK, Pawnbroking: A Study in the Inter-Relationship Between Hala- khah, Economic Activity, and Communal Self Image (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1985), p. 16: “One thing is clear: a marginal profession [money-lending] could not have developed into such an extensive and intricate realm in the history of Halakhah producing, in a usually la- conic literature, hundreds of pages of debate around some simple lines in the Talmud”.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein519 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 520 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS

Italian Jews did indeed develop a unique “culture of gifts” around the marriage ritual. The exchange of gifts was not limited to the tenaim stage; every important ritual stage — from the matchmaking moment until the wedding day — was “signaled” through an exchange of gifts. Communal tradition dictated that the groom, the bride, and their families bilaterally exchanged gifts. All important and valuable gifts were recorded in an orderly list, stating their exact cost, and added to the dowry or property list that exchanged hands in the course of marriage. Beside the gifts exchanged between groups and families, youths also conferred personal present, some under adult supervision and some in secret. The youth culture known in Europe during the early modern period crossed religious barriers. Behavior pattern of Jewish youngsters in Italy were surprisingly similar to Christian ones. Gifts, personal letters, love messages, and secret signs, all created a personal, intimate space for these youth before marriage. The difference between an “outside” and a “local” perspective of the Italian Jewish gifts tradition is largely reflected in the gap between Colon's and Provenzallo's rulings, who emphasizes the ritual interpretation that the participants in the tenaim ritual bestow on gift giving, valid even beyond this event. The prolonged halakhic controversy during and after the sixteenth century attests to the adamant resolve of Italian Jews to defend local practice, in spite of recurrent objection presented by non-Italian Jewish immigrants. This cultural choice is not free of ambivalence since, even according to local traditions, defending the practice of sivlonot beyond matchmaking stage is not an easy task. The role and legitimating of gift giving in the course of the Italian-Jew- ish marriage ritual rely on the local context shared by Jews and Christians. Yet the strong resemblance need not dismiss the differences between the two traditions. As far as contemporary sources attest, the Jewish ritual to- tally lacks gifts exchange between women. The nominal value of the gifts in Jewish context is relatively small, never surpassing a third or half of the dowry values, as in the Christian ritual. Hence, gift giving entails no com- petitive element, with one side showing id could overwhelm the other through a more expensive gift. The more considerable difference, however, lies in the legal meaning of gift giving. The Christian marriage tradition is founded on the parties' mutual agreement (the consensual approach), whereas the Jewish marriage ritual analogous to an acquisition, hence the derivative halakhic problematic. Gift giving in Italian Jewish society in the early modern period was broad in its social and ritual scope, and created a complex and multifaceted

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein520 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 521

social etiquette. The gift's money value, and the way of giving and receiving the gift convey clear ritual messages about the link between wealth and property, about ways of courtship and love, about different and competing uses of the gift by adults versus youths, and about the conjugal bond as a social unit. Protecting the local variety of the “gift culture” evoked a sharp rhetoric, even among rabbis and halakhists usually known as moderate. At stake was not only the honor of fathers, families, and the women of the household, but the honor of the entire community: “As for those”champions of virtue“who caused resentment by casting asper- sion on out daughters when matches were cancelled without a divorce after sivlonot had been given, I feel obliged to embark on a holy war to thwart their intention. May my lot be with those who rule leniently, without fearing the gossip on kiddushin”105.

105. R. Meir [Maharam] of Padua, Responsa, Cracaw, 1882, #28, p. 63a.

9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein521 9/1/07, 5:03 pm